In any case, what happens to us---and to the world---depends on what the political leadership says. No matter who was president in the US, he or she would have been staggered by this global epidemic---or pandemic, as they call it. It was just that Trump has a bigger problem getting his head around the scientific facts. So he leaves it up to the Governors of the states to establish policy.
The problem is that many people, including the wealthiest Americans, think that it is important to invest every available penny in the stock market. These folks are not happy to set aside any resources for a rainy day. When the hero of these people becomes president, it is natural that he / she is going to take away any money that seems to be idling; e.g. a team for dealing with emergencies, a team for dealing with epidemics, and so on, and use it all for tax breaks for the wealthiest instead.
The mathematics of any sort of infectious disease indicates that, at the simplest level, the number of infected individuals will follow a curve such as
In this case, two of the parameters are: (1) what percentage of people will get infected by the virus when they encounter an infectious person for, say, 1 minute, at, say, 2 feet distance? This is something we don't know, and it influences how steep the rise is. (2) How soon, on the average, do infected people get better? That influences how quick the fall-off of the curve is. (In our illustration, only that second parameter has been varied, from 1 to 1.5.)
That first parameter also reduces the height of the curve, the maximum point. The maximum point represents the time at which the most people are infected at one time. We want to make that as small as possible, and in the video, you see how this would happen. The smaller the height of that highest point, the more likely we are to be able to fit all the sick people in hospitals, and hospital camps, and so on.
This is a model. These are mathematical formulas put together making lots of simplifying assumptions. In actual fact, the true values of these assumptions might be a range, which means that the graph will consist of several of these graphs added together. This would still yield a model whose properties are largely similar to the properties of the simple model. Whatever will lower the maximum height of the simple model will also lower the height of the more complex model. In addition, the model shown in the video does not take into account the flow of a steady stream of infected people coming into the model. (That can be offset by considering the infection rate is higher than it was set at.)
You know by now about the terrible Flu that swept the nation in 1918. In that epidemic, there was a clear side-by-side comparison of two cities where one city enforced immediate social distancing, and the other city permitted a large planned celebration to take place. As you can imagine, the deaths in the city that allowed the celebration was many thousands more, per capita.
Moreover, early social distancing, and sustained social distancing was enormously effective.
The assistant governor of Texas was criticized for saying that he, for one, though he was 69, would be willing to die, if relaxing the social distancing enabled the economy to bounce back rapidly. What kind of amateur politician is this guy? Sacrificing seniors for the sake of the economy would normally be considered to be the suggestion of a maniac. But these are desperate times, and perhaps it is for the good of the nation to offer up a few thousand Texan senior citizens, as long as we in Pennsylvania aren't expected to do the same. We older folks have much to offer the younger generation, and our contributions might be desperately needed once the epidemic retreats.
Bear in mind that, as that Assistant Governor says, it is quite possible that, in the end, many of the senior citizens might die. If there is no social distancing, unfortunately, they might all get sick at the same time, and suffer without breathing apparatus for many days, before they finally succumb. Meanwhile, younger, healthier Texans, who have bravely headed out to keep the Texas Economy functioning, might not get valuable equipment to keep comfortable while they're in hospital, after getting infected.
We are, most of us, confident that the economy will bounce back, though we don't know just how much suffering this epidemic will inflict on us. It is possible that the death toll could be vast. It will be vast, if people continue to disregard the urging of cautious state governors to stay home.
In a recent TV appeal, our own Governor, Tom Wolf, shut down bars and liquor stores. But someone passed up a question through a reporter: was there a possibility of removing the edict to close down liquor stores? (Pennsylvanians consider liquor, and beer, an essential good. This is not because they are descended from some tribe in the far North, whose genes absolutely require alcohol; it is because the vast majority of Pennsylvanians find it impossible to amuse themselves, or keep themselves occupied, without simultaneously consuming beer.) The Governor took the question seriously, and said he would have to look into it further.
(I have always said that College teaches one how to keep oneself amused in one's leisure time. It is a skill sorely needed all the time, but especially during epidemics.)
An emerging voice of reason is the Governor of the State of New York. A democrat, he is more of a centrist than Senator Bernie Sanders and his followers. It appears that many folks tune in to his addresses every evening, and his announcements are considered highly reliable.
But it looks very much as though, according to an analysis by the New York Times, that those who believe in Big Government are most comfortable with radical actions to deal with the crisis, while conservatives, who have always hated Big Government, feel unable to handle the situation. This is precisely the kind of problem that Big Government is equipped to handle, and naturally the Minimalists are at a loss as to how to proceed. Now Trump is forced to instruct people to do social distancing, but he feels that is against the principles of the conservatives, that people should be allowed to do anything they want.
Meanwhile, some people are buying up firearms, to protect themselves against thieving marauders, who neglected to stock up with food. But it is an easy bet that these very same buyers of firearms are the most likely to go stealing food from timid pacifists. One sincerely hopes they invest in firearms that can be eaten, at a pinch.
Anyway, everyone that my wife and I know, are keeping calm, staying at home, and only occasionally making sorties out to the supermarkets. All their workplaces are arranging for only a single worker at a time to work in any office, since they are mostly in the service industry. But there are numerous friends and acquaintances who still go to work in crowded offices or workplaces, for fear of losing their living wages. A word or two from the President to say that the government would see that nobody loses their income would be nice. Still, there might be many who would not believe such a statement!
Arch
No comments:
Post a Comment